Kodak really wants to get out of the film business

Wants to focus on printing and business services.

Kodak is getting out of the photo paper and film business, the Associated Press reported Friday. The company is looking to sell its document imaging business in order to focus on printing and business services and lift itself out of Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

Kodak filed for bankruptcy protection back in January and has since attempted to sell its digital imaging patents to stay afloat. No one is buying, and the efforts have only earned it squabbles with Apple over ownership and use of some of the patents. Kodak accused Apple of violating a patent for digital image previews, but the International Trade Commission disagreed and ruled in Apple's favor. In another instance, Apple sued Kodak to try to sell two digital camera patents that Apple claimed it owned, but a bankruptcy judge declared them to be Kodak's property.

Now Kodak's film business is up for sale, which includes the wildly overpriced Kodak-sponsored souvenir photo stands at theme parks, according to the AP. Selling a physical film enterprise these days seems like it would be only slightly easier than selling a covered wagon dealership. That said, film-based photography has only grown in popularity with nostalgic hipsters the more it fades from big box store shelves; we wonder if Kodak will accept Kickstarter funds.

Getting any business out of Kodak management's incompetent hands is a good idea, given their extreme incompetence over the last ~30 years, so the sale of the film unit would only make its survival more likely. It could be that this is a natural step in the transformation of film photography from a mass-market business to a boutique business. There are applications (like large-format photography and fine arts) in which film has a place. Just not for snapshots.

Oh Casey, thy young and tender snark is frisky today. You might inquire how and why Illford and Fuji do what they do with film. And while analog isn't mainstream, it also isn't mostly for "nostalgic hipsters".

I grew up in Rochester, NY, where everyone either worked at Kodak, or had friends and family who did. My grandmother worked there as a secretary before she got married, and as a redhead, she was one of the models they used in testing Kodachrome. Now, instead of knowing people who work there, we know those who have been laid off and are unemployed or scraping by in retail.

It's incredibly disappointing to Rochesterians - and I'm sure to many others - to see how poor management has driven this once-vibrant, innovative company into the ground. Kodak had so many successful products and business units, and they sold off all the good ones, until now they're left with only losers. Companies have come and gone, but it's difficult to think of another one that has so relentlessly driven itself into the ground. George Eastman must be turning in his grave.

Ouch! You drink a little extra "meanness" in your Starbucks this morning?

If you want a heap of nostalgia to go with that caffeine........Please remember that Kodak invented home photography. If you ignore the film, all of those freaking smart-phones we buy now owe Kodak big-time for the concept of private individuals taking pictures instead of depending on formal portraits a la Mathew Brady.

And yes I have some Kodachrome I need to develop, found it in storage. Wonder if anybody still makes the chemicals?

Getting any business out of Kodak management's incompetent hands is a good idea, given their extreme incompetence over the last ~30 years, so the sale of the film unit would only make its survival more likely. It could be that this is a natural step in the transformation of film photography from a mass-market business to a boutique business. There are applications (like large-format photography and fine arts) in which film has a place. Just not for snapshots.

Ouch! You drink a little extra "meanness" in your Starbucks this morning?

If you want a heap of nostalgia to go with that caffeine........Please remember that Kodak invented home photography. If you ignore the film, all of those freaking smart-phones we buy now owe Kodak big-time for the concept of private individuals taking pictures instead of depending on formal portraits a la Mathew Brady.

And yes I have some Kodachrome I need to develop, found it in storage. Wonder if anybody still makes the chemicals?

But, like so many companies with one wildly successful product, they refused to plan for that product's obsolescence.

You know what Kodak should've done, 15 years ago? Turn into a high-end image editing software company. *Adobe* is what Kodak should've been. Who wouldn't want to use Kodak image and video editing software? Seems like a perfect fit, brand-wise.

Too late for that, though. Kodak's brand has been ruined in the last 10 years with crappy products (including their horrible photo-editing/management software. EasyShare is one of the worst pieces of software of all time).

Unfortunately it's not just film; it's photo paper as well. Guess Ilford and Fuji will have to take over the professional print arena.

Yes I think people forget that even though most pictures are now in digital format if you want them to be printed out professionally and not off an ink-jet then it has to be exposed to photo paper and developed just like taking pictures on film. I used to work in a photo lab and load in big rolls of the stuff along with all the required chemicals.

Unfortunately it's not just film; it's photo paper as well. Guess Ilford and Fuji will have to take over the professional print arena.

Yes I think people forget that even though most pictures are now in digital format if you want them to be printed out professionally and not off an ink-jet then it has to be exposed to photo paper and developed just like taking pictures on film. I used to work in a photo lab and load in big rolls of the stuff along with all the required chemicals.

That's not 100% correct. For small volume printing of digital images there is always dye sublimation. I have an old Kodak XLS 8600 PS that does 8x10" prints and to my eye they look just like wet process prints. They used to use these same printers in the Kodak digital print kiosks in the local CVSs and such a bunch of years back. Not sure if they are still using them though...

Unfortunately it's not just film; it's photo paper as well. Guess Ilford and Fuji will have to take over the professional print arena.

Yes I think people forget that even though most pictures are now in digital format if you want them to be printed out professionally and not off an ink-jet then it has to be exposed to photo paper and developed just like taking pictures on film. I used to work in a photo lab and load in big rolls of the stuff along with all the required chemicals.

There is dye-sublimation printing. Far superior to ink-jet and color laser, but costs a lot more too. You'd never use it for everyday printing or documents, but it's great for photos.

I'm talking about Professional photos, like you get from Costco or online photo labs, not from the little kiosks.

I have used Dye-sub printers and they are better than ink-jet and laser but still not as nice as pictures printed on real photo paper and developed. Not only that but they typically have the longest shelf life.

Is it the consumer line that's being sold off? What about motion picture film? That had to have been profitable or else they wouldn't have continued to sell it; Hollywood would have adapted digital more quickly too.

On behalf if everyone who loves proper photography (as opposed to 'fix it in post') - thank fuck for that. Maybe there is now some future for the precious little of what remains of Kodak's film lines.

Kodak murdered the film business long ago, destroying lines like Ektachrome and their B&W paper business to concentrate on inkjet printers nobody wants, despite film being about the only profitable part of the whole sorry Kodak enterprise.

Now there is a chance for someone to actually run it as a business - which, downscaled to the realities of the market of course, can have plenty of life left in it - rather than as a cashcow to be bled dry to fund illfated ventures into 'me-too' digital products.

Although I was never partial to shooting Kodachrome myself, it provided the texture of my very early life in the 1970's and 1980/90's.

The most recent blow for me was the demise of Plus-X, a crisp and luscious black and white film with as much character as a classic film noir, but with such exquisite and sharp detail that never looked self-conciously retro. I am furious about the loss of this film.

Similarly, I never quite knew the beauty of Ektachrome 100GX until I shot a 120 roll in Slovenia two years ago and marvelled at the saturated, yet realistic colours. Perfect and perfectly life-like (unlike, say, Velvia 50 or that horror 100F).

I suppose I'm mourning a way of interpreting the world and the loss of a treasured raw material from which to make my image.

I just hope that Kodak manages to keep Tri-X around for many, many more years to come.By the by, Portra 160 and 400 are truly AMAZING films in 120 - wide dynamic range, fine grain, vivid but realistic colour.

Though a few months ago Ars ran a story about how Big Hollywood is falling all over itself to convert to digital because film is comparatively so expensive.

I have been around long enough to have sees Fuji eat Kodak's lunch with color transparency film in the 80s and 90s, and to see Kodak go facedown when they could have been the biggest player in the electronic imaging business. So I won't put it past Kodak management to completely and utterly fail even as it tries to get out of the film, paper and document imaging businesses.

It's time to go buy a few bricks of Tri-X and put them in the freezer.

I've travelled in over 40 countries over the years, and it used to be that the Kodak K logo on its yellow background was one of the world's most widespread and commonly seen trademarks, sticking out over big and back-alley stores alike the world over.

Is it the consumer line that's being sold off? What about motion picture film? That had to have been profitable or else they wouldn't have continued to sell it; Hollywood would have adapted digital more quickly too.

Check out the link below, where on the second page it says "...these sales were part of Kodak’s goal to focus in the future on a set of core businesses — commercial printing, packaging printing and various printing services.

Kodak made a point of saying that businesses such as consumer inkjet printing, motion picture and television film, and specialty chemicals are outside of the core."

I bought stock in Kodak when I realized that their patents were worth more than their market value. Then I noticed as they did nothing new or innovative and gradually sold of their patents to stay solvent. I ditched the stock and realized they were beyond saving unless for some reason they changed everything they were doing.

So basically, Kodak is shedding everything that made them, well, KODAK, and turning themselves into a second-rate Xerox? Can the mighty fall any farther than that?

God save Fuji and Ilford; I realize film is dead for consumer use, but there are still some people around who like to geek out over characteristic curves and densitometer readings and watch images form on paper like magic. Even though I haven't processed a roll in years, it's a fun hobby.

Such mixed emotions. It is sad to see film go away, and Kodak's passing is really just a symbol of that (we had a great cat named T-max—a fast, high contrast black and white cat :-). But even among the semi-pro and serious amateurs I know every one has switched to digital. Simply better tech in almost every way. Still an important place for film, but it is like oil paint, it is now an art medium and no longer a tool.

I'm sure management had a hand, but it is very hard for companies to shrink in size, and the real answer is the photography business collapsed under Kodak. If you add up camera sales, reprint sales, software sales, it is probably a small fraction of the money Kodak used to get from film. Even if we take more photos now, the money we pay for taking photos has dropped dramatically. So we as consumers benefit, but we have lost something too.

Such mixed emotions. It is sad to see film go away, and Kodak's passing is really just a symbol of that (we had a great cat named T-max—a fast, high contrast black and white cat :-). But even among the semi-pro and serious amateurs I know every one has switched to digital. Simply better tech in almost every way. Still an important place for film, but it is like oil paint, it is now an art medium and no longer a tool.

I'm sure management had a hand, but it is very hard for companies to shrink in size, and the real answer is the photography business collapsed under Kodak. If you add up camera sales, reprint sales, software sales, it is probably a small fraction of the money Kodak used to get from film. Even if we take more photos now, the money we pay for taking photos has dropped dramatically. So we as consumers benefit, but we have lost something too.

Sure, the film business shrank as new technology was introduced. However, to say that it collapsed would make it seem like a sudden thing. Nope, they had decades of warning.

the problem is a lot of us camera die hards still rely on kodak Tri-X film. that stuff is amazing, especially after they upgraded the emulsion a few years back.

Call me old fashioned, but a world without TriX is a world much poorer off.

Portra color film is OK, but at least for that, there are alternatives.

I do hope they sell off the TriX line to either Fuji or Ilford so at least it will keep on going...

I highly recommend 2 alternatives, Efke or Rollei. Efke is the last remaining high quality single emulsion pan (without anti fogging layer) and has excellent exposure latitude with neutral tonal response. Rollei has 2 good choices, the classic formula pan now called "Retro" and also R3 which is nearly grain less like the old Tech Pan (out of production by Kodak for years).

Both are from Germany and a bit pricy but worth it and maybe you will find you like them more than Tri-X.

Much nicer than ilford or Fuji pans which are technically great but soulless.

So basically, Kodak is shedding everything that made them, well, KODAK, and turning themselves into a second-rate Xerox? Can the mighty fall any farther than that?

God save Fuji and Ilford; I realize film is dead for consumer use, but there are still some people around who like to geek out over characteristic curves and densitometer readings and watch images form on paper like magic. Even though I haven't processed a roll in years, it's a fun hobby.

Try Efke or Rollei from Germany, better pans than Ilford or Fuji. See my comment elsewhere about these films. Very nice stuff, should not be difficult to find from pro shops.